Theological Studies 70 (2009) . THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE PHYSICAL UNÍVERSE: THE IMPACT OF SCJENTIFIC PARADIGM SHIFTS ON CONTEMPORARY PNEUMATOLOGY WOLFGANG VONDEY A methodological shift occurred in the sciences in the 20th century that has irreversible repercussions for a contemporary theology of the Holy Spirit. Newton and Einstein followed fundamentally different trajectories that provide radically dissimilar frame- works for the pneumatological endeavor. Pneumatology after Einstein is located in a different cosmological framework constituted by the notions of order, rationality, relationality, symmetry, and movement. These notions provide the immediate challenges to a contemporary understanding of the Spirit in the physical universe. HPHE PARADIGM SHIFT IN SCIENCE from Ptolemaic to Copernican cosmo- Â logy is clearly reflected in post-Enlightenment theology. The wide- ranging implications of placing the sun instead of the earth at the center of the universe marked the beginnings of both the scientific and religious revolutions of the 16th century. A century later, Isaac Newton provided for the first time a comprehensive system of physical causality that heralded space and time as the absolute constituents of experiential reality from the perspective of both natural philosophy and theology.^ Despite the echoes WOLFGANG VONDEY received his Ph.D. in systematic theology and ethics at Marquette University and is currently associate professor of systematic theology in the School of Divinity, Regent University, Virginia. A prolific writer on Pneu- matology, ecclesiology, and the dialogue of science and theology, he has most recently published: People of Bread: Rediscovering Ecclesiology (2008); "Pentecos- tal Perspectives on The Nature and Mission of the Church" in "The Nature and Mission of the Church": Ecclesial Reality and Ecumenical Horizons for the Twenty- First Century, ed. Paul M. Collins and Michael A. Fahey (2008). In progress are two monographs: Beyond Pentecostalism: The Task of Theology in the 21st Century (Eerdmans) and God's Science: The Quest for the Holy Spirit in the Physical Universe. Research for the present article was funded in part by the John Templeton Foundation through the research initiative "Science and the Spirit: Pentecostal Perspectives on the Science-Religion Dialogue." ^ See Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, ed. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Miller Whitman (Berkeley: University of California, 1999). Important are also Newton's Opticks, in Great Books of the Western World, vol. 34, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins (Chicago: William Benton, 4 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES of these scientific revolutions in modern theology, however, the most recent paradigm shift caused by the replacement of Newtonian physics with Einstein's theory of relativity in the 20th century is hardly visible in theological reflection. The structure of scientific revolutions, similar to the examples men- tioned above, has been the frequent subject of debate in scientific circles.^ Theologians, on the other hand, have said very little about the impact of these paradigm shifts on religious thought.^ More precisely, the theological debates of the late modern world are still carried out essentially under the auspices of Newtonian physics and, as William Lane Craig lamented at the end of the 20th century, "in almost complete ignorance of the philosophy of space and time and without any profound knowledge of Relativity Theory."'* At the beginning of the 21st century, the echoes of the latest paradigm shift are compounded by the increasing interest in the concept of "spirit," which has led both scientists and theologians to the boundaries of their respective disciplines. In fact, theology itself is experiencing a paradigm shift from a widely recognized "absence" of the Spirit in theological dis- cussion to an overabundance of works in Pneumatology since the middle of the 20th century. Post-Newtonian physics speaks of the physical uni- verse in terms of such concepts as energy, radiation, magnetism, waves, and field theories. Recent theological investigations speak of the Holy Spirit in surprisingly similar terms, among them the notions of energy, radiation, space, force, field, and hght.^ This juncture invites questions 1952) 373-544; and Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, trans, and éd. A. Rupert Hall and Marie Boas Hall (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 1962). ^ Some popular examples are Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1996); Paul C. W. Davies, About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution (London: Penguin, 1995); Elie Zahar, Einstein's Revolution: A Study in Heuristic (La Salle, 111.: Open Court, 1989); Joseph Agassi, The Continuing Revolution: A History of Physics from the Greeks to Einstein (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968). ^ See, e.g., Thomas F. Torrance, "Newton, Einstein, and Scientific Theology," Religious Studies 8 (1972) 233-50; Enrique L. Dóriga, El universo de Newton y de Einstein: Introducción a la filosofía de la naturaleza, 2nd ed. (Barcelona: Herder, 1984); Peter E. Hodgson, "Relativity and Religion: The Abuse of Einstein's Theory," Zygon 38 (2003) 393-409; Roy D. Morrison II, Science, Theology, and the Transcendental Horizon, AAR Studies in Religion 67 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1994) 277-349. '' William Lane Craig, "God and Real Time," Religious Studies 26 (1990) 335-47, at 335. ^ See, e.g., Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God, trans. Margaret Kohl (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985); Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation, trans. Margaret Kohl SCIENCE AND PNEUMATOLOGY 5 regarding the commonality of presuppositions that inform the scientific and pneumatological inquiries as well as the methodological differences that distinguish both approaches. At the heart of the debate stands the question of ascertaining a common ground for an interdisciplinary approach to the function of God's Spirit in the physical universe. I propose that the methodological shift that occurred in the sciences in the 20th century has irreversible repercussions for a contemporary theology of the Holy Spirit, More precisely, Newton and Einstein followed fundamentally different trajectories that provide radically dissimilar frame- works for the pneumatological endeavor. Theologians have, at times, attempted to use the idea of "spirit" as a metaphor for physical realities without acknowledging that a Newtonian or Einsteinian universe yield radically different results,'' In many ways, the renaissance in Pneumatology since the middle of the 20th century has remained indebted to Newton's philosophy of nature and ignored the implications of the most recent scientific revolution,^ Einstein's theory of relativity challenges the fundamental concepts of Newtonian physics and the implications reached by theology on the basis of Newton's insights. In this article, I suggest that the heart of Pneumatol- ogy after Einstein is located in a different cosmological framework con- stituted by the notions of order, rationality, relationality, symmetry, and movement. In light of this thesis, the task at hand is threefold: Part 1 describes the fundamental differences between Newton's and Einstein's methodological trajectories with particular attention to each cosmology. This part examines Newton's and Einstein's views on the scientific endeav- or, their respective methodologies, their concept of the universe, and the position of God in the cosmos. Part 2 situates the notion of "spirit" in the cosmological frameworks provided by each paradigm and examines the implications for a pneumatological approach to the physical universe in (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); Joseph A, Bracken, Sociery and Spirit: A Trinitarian Cosmology (Selinsgrove, Penn,: Susquehanna University, 1991); Wolfhart Pannen- berg, Toward a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith, ed, Ted Peters (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993); Denis Edwards, Breath of Life: A Theology of the Creator Spirit (MaryknoU, N,Y,: Orbis, 2004), ^ This criticism is frequently leveled at the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg, See, e,g,, Mark William Worthing, God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 123-24; John Polkinghorne, Reason and Reality: The Relationship between Science and Theology (Philadelphia: Trinity Press Inter- national, 1991) 93; Jeffrey S, Wicken, "Theology and Science in the Evolving Cosmos: A Need for Dialogue," Zygon 23 (1988) 45-55, ^ For a similar argument with regard to contemporary Pneumatology see Wolf- gang Vondey, "The Holy Spirit and Time in Contemporary Catholic and Protestant Theology," Scottish Journal of Theology 58 (2005) 393-409, THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Newton's and Einstein's system. I conclude by suggesting a foundatiorial paradigm for Pneumatology after Einstein. ' THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES OF NEWTON'S AND i EINSTEIN'S TRAJECTORIES The title of Newton's monumental work, Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica, commonly known as the Principia, seems to declare unambig- uously the intentions of its author: to provide a philosophy of nature based on mathematical principles. Conceived in many ways as a rebuttal 'of Descartes's Principia philosophiae, Newton's philosophical principles are framed by two fundamental coordinates: nature and mathematics.^ However, Newton explained the goals of his endeavor in contrast to both ancient geometry, which "considered mechanics to be of the greatest im- portance